Re: [Patch v2] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bugs

[David Howells]

Amerigo Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> -	return (sem->activity != 0);
> +	return !(sem->activity == 0 && list_empty(&sem->wait_list));

This needs to be done in the opposite order with an smp_rmb() between[*], I
think, because the someone releasing the lock will first reduce activity to
zero, and then attempt to empty the list, so with your altered code as it
stands, you can get:

	CPU 1				CPU 2
	===============================	===============================
	[sem is read locked, 1 queued writer]
	-->up_read()
	sem->activity--			-->rwsem_is_locked()
	[sem->activity now 0]		sem->activity == 0 [true]
					<interrupt>
	-->__rwsem_do_wake()
	sem->activity = -1
	[sem->activity now !=0]
	list_del()
	[sem->wait_list now empty]	</interrupt>
					list_empty(&sem->wait_list) [true]
	wake_up_process()
	<--__rwsem_do_wake()
	<--up_read()
	[sem is write locked]		return false [ie. sem is not locked]

In fact, I don't think even swapping things around addresses the problem.  You
do not prevent the state inside the sem changing under you whilst you try to
interpret it.

[*] there would also need to be an smp_wmb() between the update of
    sem->activity and the deletion from sem->wait_list to balance out the
    smp_rmb().

David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/